Sorry to reply to my own posting, but all I've had in response is one private email concurring that a working ppp under 2.0.x doesn't work under 2.2.x.
Having played about with arp under 2.2.10, the problem seems to boil down to this: # arp -i eth0 -d 888.888.92.28 # arp -i eth0 -s 888.888.92.28 -D eth0 $ arp -n -a ? (888.888.92.28) at 00:A0:24:B8:63:B5 [ether] PERM on eth0 /proc/net/arp contains 888.888.92.28 0x1 0x6 00:A0:24:B8:63:B5 * eth0 # arp -i eth0 -d 888.888.92.28 # arp -i eth0 -s 888.888.92.28 -D eth0 pub $ arp -n -a ? (888.888.92.28) at * PERM PUP on eth0 /proc/net/arp contains 888.888.92.28 0x1 0xc 00:00:00:00:00:00 * eth0 In both cases, other machines show ? (888.888.92.28) at <incomplete> on eth0 So it appears that publishing the ARP entry kills the hardware address which negates the whole point of publishing it anyway. Quoting David Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): [...] > > I've read www.debian.org/releases/2.1/running-kernel-2.2 > and installed www.debian.org/~rcw/2.2/netbase/netbase_3.12-2_i386.deb > but am not using the other things like dhcp, pcmcia, isdn, bootpc, > diald. > > I've removed the redundant route commands from /etc/init.d/network. > At home, I delete the redundant route to the .92 network that > 2.2.x makes, and resolv.conf is filled/emptied by ip-up/down. > > I've noticed that /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward is set to 1 in 2.0.36 > and 0 in 2.2.10 by default so I changed it to 1 but with no effect. > > What have I missed? Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
